Post-revolution polls in Egypt

Childlike Empress said:
Viewing conflicts in the middle east through strictly sectarian lenses is a traditional weakness of Orientalists, and sometimes wishful thinking. Will be interesting to see how the diplomatic relationship between Egypt and Iran (who name the "Arab Spring" "Islamic Awakening") will develop after this summit. Can only go upwards anyway, and already did by Morsi attending.
Click to expand...

Not strictly through a sectarian lens, but it should always be part of the equation.

When the chips are down, people revert to tribal behaviour and sectarianism is just one form of that.

It was quite bizarre to watch during the Yougoslavia conflict, how the alliances were primarily along sectarian lines.
Russia backed the Serbs.
Germany backed the Croats.
Turkey backed the Kosovars.
All nicely along sectarian lines. Though I'm sure they had other rationalisations for why they backed that particular fraction.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Viewing conflicts in the middle east through strictly sectarian lenses is a traditional weakness of Orientalists, and sometimes wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

So under what circumstances, do you think, would a national leader who is a member of a heavily Sunni-supremacist organization whose explicit goal is a Sunni Islamist hegemony over the region (to be accomplished by deposing local regimes that do not conform to Qutbist orthodoxy) not support an internal majority-Sunni uprising against an Alawite dictator supported by outside Shia allies?
 
Your characterization of what's happening in Syria is a caricature, but i'm not the least surprised about Morsi's statement. "Sunny loyalty" is just not the only reason (but certainly part of the equation as Eddie Dane correctly pointed out).
 
You didn't answer my question.

What reason would Morsi have for supporting the Assad regime and its Iranian allies against the rebels in Syria?
 
None I can imagine. He has reasons to mediate in the interest of the whole region, though, that's why he attends the summit and is trying to set up a "contact group" consisting of all regional players, including Iran, to find a solution.
 
I know Samuel Huntington is considered outdated and all, but maybe it's interesting to see how his theories apply to the situation.

Briefly: civilizations will clash from time to time. (in this case Sunni and Shiite)
The fighting usually starts in areas with people from mixed civilizations (primary combatants, in this case Sunni and Shiite in Syria and possibly Lebanon).
The countries in the vicinity (secondary combatants) start giving support to their brethren, the conflict expands and the country where the fighting takes place becomes the battleground for these secondary combatants.
The conflict heats up more and the secondary combatants start to ask for support from the most powerful state (or states) within their civilization. The core states.
Enter the Tertiary combatants. The core states usually support their client states in a covert way, but if there is no clear winner they will face a choice: force the client states (secondary combatants) to compromise with their enemies and hammer out a deal, or enter the conflict overtly.
This is often thought too costly, as the core states are now going head-to-head, and if they have nukes, there's no way they'll go there.
So they tell the secondary states to make peace. This forces those states to retract their support for the primary combatants, who feel betrayed, but have no choice but to comply. A deal is struck and the conflict goes back to simmer until it heats up again.

This is from memory, I might not have done Mr Huntington justice with the above summary.

I know, the model is flawed. but I also think he has some of the broad strokes right.

So, applying this. Syria/Lebanon will be the battleground where Iran and Turkey/Saudi Arabia slug it out. It gets bloody and nasty (is already) but when they are about to clash, they will force a peace agreement in the civil war.

As the population of Syria is overwhelmingly Sunni, they will increase their power a lot. No matter how the power sharing agreement is drafted.
Maybe the Shia will get to keep their share of the power, but I don't see how Iran could convincingly win this thing.
A victory for them entails effectively repressing the Sunni majority in Syria, which is undo-able in the long run.

It's just as untenable as Serbia's claim on Kosovo. The demographics make it impossible.

ETA: they seem to skip the middle bit, as one of the core states now seems to have boots on the ground.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
The uprising against Assad has a heavily religious component, with a mostly-Sunni population fighting a minority-Alawite-dominated government that is supported by a Shiite theocratic country. It's not surprising to me that the President of Egypt, a member of the conservative-Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, supports the Sunni rebels against the Alawite Assad and his Iranian Shia allies.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of the sectarian nature of the conflict. It was a little surprising that Morsi would be so blunt in Tehran though. In the old days, such disagreements were papered over in the name of Islamic unity against the common enemy, but that truce seems to be breaking down.

Childlike Empress said:
Viewing conflicts in the middle east through strictly sectarian lenses is a traditional weakness of Orientalists, and sometimes wishful thinking. Will be interesting to see how the diplomatic relationship between Egypt and Iran (who name the "Arab Spring" "Islamic Awakening") will develop after this summit. Can only go upwards anyway, and already did by Morsi attending.
Click to expand...

How else to explain the current network of alliances? All the Sunni countries seem to be backing the rebels, while the Shiites back Assad, no?

Saudi Arabia is no friend of uprisings against the status quo in general. They backed Mubarak for as long as they could. Except now that the uprising is a Sunni uprising against an Alawite dictator, they back the Sunnis.
 
Puppycow said:
How else to explain the current network of alliances? All the Sunni countries seem to be backing the rebels, while the Shiites back Assad, no?
Click to expand...


You can't explain something so complex by so simple categories. And what is a Sunni or Shia country anyway? Is Iraq Shia because of its current government? Is Jordan Sunni because its a Hashemite monarchy? Both seem to try to stay rather neutral on Syria. Other factors play important roles, like relationship to and dependence on the US (in case of Turkey NATO membership), f.e. Purely using the sectarian lense to play expert treats them all like idiots.

Report from Morsi's China visit: Egypt joins China club

Which btw cites an opinion poll showing that a majority on the "Arab Street" including in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would like to see a nuclear armed Iran. Here, counterweighting Israel beats Sunni/Shia divide.
 
Last edited:
Looks like things aren't entirely smooth sailing for Morsi. A number of secular and liberal groups organized an anti-Morsi rally in Tahrir Square yesterday, and they were attacked by pro-Morsi counter-protestors (and, even though they officially deny it, members of the Brotherhood). The anti-Morsi protesters were driven from the square, then returned in larger numbers, where a massive fight ensued. Later that night, the violence finally ended when the pro-Morsi protestors left the streets. Over 100 people have been reported wounded, and the anti-Morsi protestors burned a bus belonging to the pro-Morsi group.

The police forces did not intervene on either side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/12/tahrir-square-clashes-mohamed-morsi

http://www.bikyamasr.com/79902/update-over-100-injured-in-egypt-violence-between-demonstrators/

Anger is running high against Morsi even among his supporters, partly because of continuing economic problems in Egypt, but also because 24 members of the old Mubarak regime who were on trial for the attacks on protestors during the initial anti-Mubarak protests were just acquitted. Morsi attempted to mollify people angry about this by replacing Egypt's head prosecutor. The prosecutor basically refused, and so far Morsi has backed down from his efforts.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...s-off-on-replacing-egypts-top-prosecutor.html

So who knows what's next.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Which btw cites an opinion poll showing that a majority on the "Arab Street" including in Egypt and Saudi Arabia would like to see a nuclear armed Iran. Here, counterweighting Israel beats Sunni/Shia divide.
Click to expand...

That's interesting.

It makes sense. I could think of scenarios where Israel would use nukes.
But I don't see Sunni and Shia countries nuking each other. no matter how much tension there is between them.
 
WildCat said:
Chaos, riots, deaths, a plunging economy, and the steady erosion of civil rights.

The only possible outcome from mixing religion and state.
Click to expand...

That all depends.

We had Christian Democrats here in Europe.
As long as they don't go fundi, it could work.

Of course, mix the ideology of the brothers with a poor country, with a largely illiterate population, very limited natural resources, having to import food, lots of corruption, overpopulation, the previous power structure still active behind the scenes etc etc etc.

It never looked like this was going to be smooth sailing for Morsi or anyone else.

ETA: and the people are already demanding results:
'Yo Morsi! It's been three months, man. Where are those economic improvements?'
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
ETA: and the people are already demanding results:
'Yo Morsi! It's been three months, man. Where are those economic improvements?'
Click to expand...

Basically, yes.

Morsi's (and the Brotherhood's) election successes seem to be far less about religion, and far more about Egyptians simply wanting security and economic prosperity.

And now that Morsi has so far been unable to deliver (though, really, how much could he have actually done to turn around the massive, endemic economic problems in just three months?), people - including some of his supporters - are turning on him, regardless of his religious stance.
 
ANTPogo said:
Basically, yes.

Morsi's (and the Brotherhood's) election successes seem to be far less about religion, and far more about Egyptians simply wanting security and economic prosperity.

And now that Morsi has so far been unable to deliver (though, really, how much could he have actually done to turn around the massive, endemic economic problems in just three months?), people - including some of his supporters - are turning on him, regardless of his religious stance.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like Egypt's best bet would be industry. They're good at textiles.

But there are huge problems with corruption, infrastructure and also a lot of cultural and communication difficulties, as I hear from people in the industry.

IMHO, Morsi's best bet is to ram through some big harbour and road improvements, put customs people under a magnifying glass and get a bunch of Western and Asian consultants and management.

This could improve things and create jobs.
And it would take decades, not months to get on the road.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Looks to me like Egypt's best bet would be industry. They're good at textiles.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what Turkey did - they now have a huge chunk of the denim manufacturing market.

Egypt was also massively reliant on tourist dollars, and that isn't going to come anywhere close to recovering as long as there's still uncertainty and unrest (and a pervading sense of intense anti-Westernism) there. Either Morsi's government turns that around too, or Egypt is going to have to find a replacement source of income just to get back to where it started, to say nothing of improving things.

But there are huge problems with corruption, infrastructure and also a lot of cultural and communication difficulties, as I hear from people in the industry.
Click to expand...

The old regime is still firmly entrenched. The army especially was heavily involved in business interests (it was practically a state within a state), and still controls most of it.

IMHO, Morsi's best bet is to ram through some big harbour and road improvements, put customs people under a magnifying glass and get a bunch of Western and Asian consultants and management.

This could improve things and create jobs.
And it would take decades, not months to get on the road.
Click to expand...

That's what makes Egypt's future so precarious. As long as the populace demands lightning-quick results and boots out anyone who doesn't instantly deliver, things will never stabilize enough to let the economy recover at all.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Looks to me like Egypt's best bet would be industry. They're good at textiles.

But there are huge problems with corruption, infrastructure and also a lot of cultural and communication difficulties, as I hear from people in the industry.

IMHO, Morsi's best bet is to ram through some big harbour and road improvements, put customs people under a magnifying glass and get a bunch of Western and Asian consultants and management.

This could improve things and create jobs.
And it would take decades, not months to get on the road.
Click to expand...
Such infrastructure cannot survive when ultimate power is given to those who use religion (and their own particular version of it) as the ultimate law.
 
WildCat said:
Such infrastructure cannot survive when ultimate power is given to those who use religion (and their own particular version of it) as the ultimate law.
Click to expand...

If this were true, we wouldn't currently be worried about Iran building both a nuclear weapon and a missile delivery system for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom